« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
work away from military preparations, into the production of food, clothing, housing, transportation, warmth, and health for the coming Russian generations. Ninety-five percent of the Russian people are deeply patriotic Russian citizens willing to fight and die to protect their motherland from any foreign enemy.
When they look elsewhere, and not to the Kremlin, for their basic national security and human needs, the Kremlin will lose its power to threaten the world. The Kremlin is not superhuman to the point of moving the Russian people in the opposite direction from their basic instincts.
There are more than 120 sovereign nations on earth. The people of all nations are willing to fight to protect their native land from foreign enemies. The people of all nations need, and deserve, national security and independence. The people of all nations will follow the leadership of that nation which can bring them safety and protection ***not fear and anxiety.
The nation which emerges into world leadership in the coming generation will not be the nation brandishing the power of death for mankind. It will not be the nation disarming its national strength and abdicating leadership power. The nation which will deserve the role of world leadership will be the nation pioneer. ing the new power needed by all nations, the power for positive protection of all nations.
There is no way world leadership can be built upon escalation of antihuman power. It can be built only upon the development of prohuman power. It is time for the Congress to ask the President to prepare a plan for positive world peace, and the protection of all nations.
DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT PEACE?
As a Nation we Americans stand paralyzed between two opposing traits of human nature. We are lured in one direction by the love of money and in the opposite direction by a yearning for peace.
The overpowering unconscious economic motivations which in the past have driven this Nation to power and wealth, suddenly have been shortcircuited. Our economic drives have become geared to the ever-increasing power and success of the enemy. Each time Communist world power and threat leaps up to a new magnitude, American public danger goes up; nonprofit military think-factory budgets go up; engineering university research grants go up; subsidies for scientists go up; military responsibilities and promotions go up. The hierarchy of national defense power and policy bases long-range planning on the hope for prosperity from protracted conflict, protracted national danger, protracted national insecurity, protracted Communist power expansion, and protracted defense spending. The power structure which urges the President to increase the strikes against North Vietnam, for example, generally gains personal prosperity from the escalation of the Communist response.
We find no evil men involved. We find unconscious drives which dominate our judgments. We find a spirit of greed which drowns out the faint concern for peace. We find a civilization making money from antihuman military production that for 4 years has actively thwarted the free discussion of the development of prohuman war safety systems, which would affect profits. We find nearly our entire population, including ourselves, enjoying the binge of extra spending money resulting from the $50 billion a year bonanza that the ever-increasing Communist world threat brings us. The idea of planning and developing the power to eventually break this Communist threat sparks hostility and rejection. We find a civilization making increasing profit from its descent toward self-destruction. We find a moral problem.
THE VISION OF A NEW AMERICAN CHARACTER
When and if the American people make a great commitment to pioneer and develop global war protection systems, a dark cloud will lift, we believe.
At each stage of development of this new strategic power, the national defense strength will be increased. This new power is not to be confused with the threatened weakness and danger of premature disarmament. Nations will be able to negotiate disarmament at some future date when one-nation defense systems have become obsolete, because nations find their safety and protection in a new global war control authority under a new United Nations.
Military men now sworn to give their lives, if necessary, to protect the people of one nation, will continue with that commitment, and in addition will be working toward the even larger moral vision of an oath, one day, to give their lives, if
necessary, to protect the people of all nations, in a global war safety military force.
Women whose men are serving in defense forces or defense industries will find new release in encouraging these men to go onward with their careers, but toward the distant greater vision of building global military systems for the protection of women and children of all races, colors, creeds, and nationalities.
All women can support national defense efforts and sacrifices in the knowledge that man is building toward the day in which military forces will be transformed into worldwide protective systems instead of destructive systems.
People of moral concern will support military development programs, rather than picket them, because military planning will be leading toward all-nation defense systems in which, one day, men and nations will be committed to the safety of their enemies, and their neighbors, as well as themselves in the deepest tradition of the world's major religions and ethical movements.
Young boys and girls will choose careers in science or law or politics or other fields with the vision of building a better world for all nations, instead of facing the duty of military service for the limited objective of killing their peers in other nations.
There will be a higher quality to the American character as it becomes committed to the greater vision of returning the evil of Communist threat to the United States with a two-power counterattack-(1) defensive power to prevent Communist or any other aggression, plus (2) the building of world safety systems to protect the Russian people from threat of war far better than their own onenation defense system can protect them.
The relentless generation-long drift toward final world war can be reversed in a slow, complex, dangerous transition from history-long military preoccupation with weapons to kill an enemy, into the new military, moral, political, and strategic vision of global strength mobilized to protect all nations from the dangers of
As a moment arrived when it was appropriate to mobilize to break through into air power *** and another moment arrived when it was appropriate to mobilize to break through into nuclear power * * * and another moment arrived when it was appropriate to mobilize to break through into space power * * * so the moment has now arrived for the American people to take the lead in not only planning for peace, but mobilizing for the breakthrough into global war safety control systems. The American people are helpless to act until the President assumes this responsibility. This paper is only an inadequate preliminary preview which will raise more questions than it answers.
A more detailed preliminary prospectus may be found in the strategic study, "War Safety Control Report" ($3), copies of which we will gladly provide without cost to members of the committee. More than a year ago Senator Jacob K. Javits, who wrote an introduction for the study, presented a copy of this book to each Member of the Senate.
The attached items from the May 8, 1965, issue of America magazine provide further perspective.
We offer to be of further help in any way we can.
HOWARD G. KURTZ.
Mr. Howard G. Kurtz and Rev. Harriet B. Kurtz, founders of War Control Planners, Inc., are coeditors of the strategic study, "War Safety Control Report" (box 35, Chappaqua, N.Y., $3), in which leaders from military, technological, legal, economic, public opinion, political, and moral fields, each writing within his own special field of competence, help to visualize the long-range strategic goal of a war control authority capable of preventing war, and capable of guaranteeing the national security and political independence not only of the United States, but of every country in the world.
Mr. and Mrs. Kurtz have been engaged in this strategic study since 1946 when they undertook 2 years' graduate study of Russian-American problems at Cornell University and at the Russian Institute at Columbia University, while Mr. Kurtz was spearheading advance planning for American Overseas Airlines' proposed operations from New York to Moscow, as certificated by the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board. A former lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, Mr. Kurtz graduated in industrial management from Penn State in 1930, and is now a senior associate in a New York management consulting firm. Mrs. Kurtz graduated from Wellesley College in 1937 and from Union Theological Seminary in 1962. She is
a minister of the United Church of Christ working independently on a mission of war control.
War Control Planners, Inc., box 35, Chappaqua, N.Y., is a nonpolitical, nonprofit educational organization chartered by New York State to provide an instrument through which individual citizens may contribute their professional talents, their communications capabilities, or their financial support to educate the public on awesome new powers available to mankind for the first time in history. A generation may be required to pioneer war control power, as a generation was required to pioneer air power, nuclear power, or space power. It is the purpose of War Control Planners, Inc., to disseminate information about this new power, and to stimulate widest possible nonpolitical discussion and debate.
This is a citizen effort and is supported by voluntary contributions. Contributions are deductible according to section 501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to war control planners are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes.
AMERICAN NATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY REVIEW,
WORLD SECURITY SYSTEM AND WAR CONTROL
President Johnson's April 7 speech at Johns Hopkins University may have been only the first step in a program of positive thinking to achieve a cold war breakthrough. His pledge of a billion dollars to support a U.N.-directed plan of massive economic development for the whole of southeast Asia-as an alternative to war in that cold war hotspot-was dramatic enough. The following week, though, Washington began to hear high-level hints, and the press sent up a few trial ballons, about another, even more imaginative administration alternative to war.
Harlan Cleveland, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, dropped the first public hint on a recent Voice of America broadcast. "In an effort to curb the spread of atomic weapons," he said, "the administration is considering a plan for an international security system to protect all nonnuclear nations from attack. This idea of a world security structure," Cleveland continued, "has grown out of President Johnson's pledge, last October 19, that 'nations that do not seek national nuclear weapons can be sure that if they need our strong support against some threat of nuclear blackmail, then they will have it.'"
Specifics of this administration proposal so far have not been spelled out. But its potential promise is staggering. With Red China now in the big bomb picture, neither nuclear war nor unilateral disarmament offers much hope for a cold war solution. As an alternative, a world security system-even if still a pipedream-certainly merits discussion.
Asked about the new "world security" proposal, officials of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency said the United States was not yet prepared to make specific proposals in Geneva. They did acknowledge, however, that the administration was looking for some way to implement President Johnson's October guarantee against nuclear blackmail.
But where have they been looking? Their sons and daughters in high school and college could have told them, for instance, of the "War Safety Control Report" (cf. p. 656), Twelve thousand copies of this highly technical study of a possible world security system were distributed by the National Committee on Discussion and Debate for use with the 1964-65 national debate topic: "International Control of Weapons." For that matter, copies of the report were available in the Pentagon bookstore.
Moreover, almost in anticipation of the administration's new approach to the cold war, the editors of the report argue:
"If the American people are the first to demonstrate not only a national defense capability second to none; and not only a group national defense capability such as NATO; but the new all-nation defense capability of war safety control, aggressively to guard all nations against threats of future war, the impact on the public of the world will be so great that no one will remember who was first to land a lonely astronaut on an empty moon.'
War safety control may not be the answer to the administration's quest, but it sounds as if it might be worth looking into.
WAR SAFETY CONTROL
The war safety control idea is nothing new to America readers. One of the earliest formulations of its proposals was made in these pages almost 5 years ago ("War Safety Control," Oct. 8, 1960). In essence, it is simply a plan to mobilize modern technology for the purpose of preventing was on a global scale. Call it a new concept of strategic power, if you like; not a strategy of defense nor even of deterrence, but a strategy of prevention.
In the past 5 years, a great deal of private research, discussion, and study has been spent on the idea of war safety control to find out whether it really is feasible. The concept has been wrung inside out in an attempt to squeeze out any bits of science fiction. Its technical aspects have been examined by such men as Harold Rapaport, military systems scientist and vice president of International Electric Co.; Robert J. Jeffries, past president of the Instrument Society of America; and Donald J. Ritchie, arms control scientist with Bendix Research Laboratories. Louis B. Sohn, an international law expert from Harvard Law School, examined its legal implications; William E, Moran, dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, studied its relationships to the world economy. The military aspects of the idea have been thrashed out, off the record, with some of Washington's leading military advisers; its moral dimensions have been explored and argued by Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and eithical culture thinkers and theologians.
Many of these men-writing in their private, not official, capacities-contributed chapters to a privately published "War Safety Control Report" now available for further study (box 35, Chappaqua, N.Y., $3). Their conclusions are cautiously optimistic. "Based on an analysis of these systems and described areas of supporting technology," says Harold Rapaport, for example, "it is felt that, supported by a reasonable degree of development effort, a war safety control system is quite feasible and supportable from a technical point of view."
Does that mean it would work? "War safety control actually works" (note present tense), says Donald J. Ritchie, "in the same awkward and preliminary sense that the Wright brothers' first airplane actually flew." And he goes on to show how the elements of war safety control-detection, public recognition, reaction, and prevention, operated to a shaky but recognizable extent in the tense Cuban missile crisis. Had an international security system been in effect then, he argues, control pressure in that instance would have come from world tax-with considerably less overall war tension as a result.
No one, however, least of all the experts who wrote it, considers the "War Safety Control Report" to be the answer to war control. But they do think that the idea has enough merit to warrant the expenditure of research funds-whether Government or foundation-for prolonged and large-scale study. Private study and private resources have taken the idea about as far as they can go. The report itself was made public only to stimulate the widest possible professional and public, pro and con discussion and further exploration. That much, at least, it surely merits.
As Father L. C. McHugh, S.J., of Georgetown University and formerly an associate editor of America, wrote of the report:
"John XXIII [in Pacem in Terris] also puts hope in those men, few in numbers (but the numbers must grow), who are scientifically competent, technically capable, and skilled in the practice of their professions, and who will be able to create a synthesis between scientific, technical, and professional elements on the one hand and spiritual values on the other. Are not these just the people whom we are trying to enlist in an examination of the potential of war safety control? I think Pope John XXIII would not find it difficult to bless the efforts of those who, through such a technical device, hope to do their bit toward fashioning a lasting peace with built-in security before some crackpot or evil genius, or some tragic flaw in a 'fail safe' system, sets off the apocalyptic, 'Where's everybody?" bomb and writes a flaming finis to history."
In view of the administration's recent proposal for a world security system, perhaps the time has come for another look at something like war safety control. DANIEL L. FLAHERTY.
MAY 16, 1965.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
GENTLEMEN: Through your office, I have been informed that a letter bearing upon S. Con. Res. 32, addressed to you before May 19, would be included in the record, along with printed testimony given at the recent public hearings, now terminated.
Accordingly, I write to state opposition to the above-mentioned concurrent resolution, my opposition being based-not upon the apparent opposition of that resolution to our war with Vietnam-upon the assumption of that resolution that there is any real merit in the United Nations Charter (after 20 years of its complete failure, which I predicted in July 1945); upon its apparent view that President Johnson can sincerely talk for peace and act for war, simultaneously; upon its implication that the United States can succeed in its birthright of world leadership, while violating its own Constitution; upon ignoring by the resolution of essential peace techniques that are available, but unused.
I have tried repeatedly, but without success to date, to get President Johnson to call a third world constitutional convention to form a successful world organization. Instead of some office in some civic or other national group, I offer the fact that I have prepared the draft of a proposed constitution for the United Nations of Earth-UNE, as the reason why my testimony deserves at least careful consideration.
My proposed world constitution is based upon the nonsectarian Christianity of of Jesus Christ-the only foundation upon which there can be a successful world organization. It outlines a new world economy, higher than either communism or capitalism, and suggests establishment of a world radio university (the only practical method for bringing ever-increasing educational opportunity to every citizen of the world, at minimum cost per student unit); as well as organization of a unified world government, operated by complete, continuous, direct exercise of electoral franchise by each literate citizen of the world, under the guidance of God through prayer.
That proposed world constitution deserves a series of public hearings before this committee and I can go into much further detail upon my above suggestions, if, as, and when desired.
Thank you for whatever courtesy you can rightly extend in this matter. Sincerely,
Hon. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: I learned only yesterday, on the day of the hearings, that the Committee on Foreign Relations had scheduled hearings on Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, the so-called planning for peace resolution of which Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania is a principal author. It is a matter of regret to me that I was unable to offer testimony in support of the resolution at the time, and it is my hope that you will accept this statement for inclusion in the record of the hearings of your committee.
It is to me and to countless other citizens of the United States in the atomic age nothing less than terrifying that the Government of the American Nation undertakes in defense of our interests such unilateral actions as in Vietnam and in the Dominican Republic without at the same time making any serious effort to construct, as a preferable way to keep the peace and to protect democracy and freedom, an apparatus of world law, or even to study what such a world law should be and how to attain it. Even the most utopian dreamer should see by now that such negotiations as we conduct for disarmament, or the work of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, are meaningless without the foundation of a world law as a basis for peace.
There is no question that reform of the United Nations to provide a basis of world law is possible, though we can all agree that the difficulties of such an undertaking are formidable. There is no question, either, that the United States is failing to make any effort in that direction comparable with the gravity and the urgency of the challenge. It is precisely to this point that Senator Clark and the other sponsors of the resolution have directed the language and intent of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, and in my estimation it represents only a minimum measure and a first step which Congress in the name of logic and sanity should take at this time. I urge that your committee report it favorably.